Climate change has been a topical issue over the last few years. It has enjoyed overwhelming prominence not because it is an uncommon occurrence but because of its potential adverse consequences. Though humanity acknowledges the reality of climate change, there are those who have attempted to solely attribute this phenomenon to what we do here on earth while vehemently wishing to silence those who hold unorthodox views that nature dictates the cause of humanity. A similar intellectual bullying occurred when the debate around the link between HIV and Aids was in full swing a few years back.
What we should all acknowledge is that climate change is the result of both human and natural causes, though not in equal measure. The question we must ask is why the human causes are over-amplified when science seems to suggest that natural causes have more devastating effects to civilisation or humanity in general. It is important that we should curb greenhouse gas emissions but will that cause an abrupt end to climate change? The answer is NO!
The ice age was not caused by human activity on earth. Sages of our time and those before us say it was influenced by changes in the ocean circulation arising from the earth’s orbital variation. We have now transitioned to the warm age. There are scientists who tell us that ocean currents do carry heat from the tropical zones (Cancer and Capricorn) to the two poles, North and South. This melts the the ice caps at these poles. As the ice melts the pressure holding the tectonic plates is gradually reduced and allows them to move and as a consequence we endure devastating natural disasters such as floods, tsunamis and earthquakes. We have seen a recurrence of earthquakes in Guatemala, Argentina and Venezuela in one week since the horror of Haiti.
A further consequence of the melting ice caps is the altering the earth’s axis of rotation. What we know is that the earth’s orbital variation does lead to climate change. Science teaches us that the tilt of the earth causes the seasons. We have summer when the earth is tilted towards the sun and winter when it tilts away from the sun.
A French mathematician, Joseph Alphonse Adhemar (1797–1862), in his 1842 book Revolutions of the Sea was first to suggest that the ice age was caused by a variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun. Adhemar’s views were later improved upon by the Yugoslav mathematician Milutin Milankovitch after whom the Milankovitch Theory was named. He observed that there are three types of variation in the earth’s orbit around the sun, which had an impact on the global climate. According to Milankovitch these three variations together affect “the total amount of sunlight received by the earth and distribution of that sunlight at different latitudes and at different times”.
Charles Hapgood (1904-1982) in his books Earth’s Shifting Crust (1958) and Path of the Pole (1970) also built on Adhemar’s observations. The renowned theoretical physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) before his death wrote a foreword to Hapgood’s book and said:
“A great many empirical data indicate that at each point on the earth’s surface that has been carefully studied, many climatic changes have taken place, apparently quite suddenly. This, according to Hapgood, is explicable if the virtually rigid outer crust of the earth undergoes, from time to time, extensive displacement over the viscous, plastic, possibly fluid inner layers. Such displacements may take place as the consequence of comparatively slight forces exerted on the crust, derived from the earth’s momentum of rotation, which in turn will tend to alter the axis of rotation, which in turn will tend to alter the axis of rotation of the earth’s crust.”
In 2009 Nasa released a report titled “Severe Space Weather Events — Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts” which dealt with the consequences of solar flares that could disrupt earth’s magnetic field and alter the axis of rotation of the earth’s crust. Solar flares emit radiation where “25% of it is absorbed by the atmosphere and 25% is reflected by the clouds back into space. The remaining radiation travels unimpeded to the earth and heats its surface”.
That the sun affects the earth’s climate systems is not rocket science and we cannot ignore the adverse impact of the sun’s activity on climate patterns on earth. There are scientists who hold an unpopular view that the cause of global warming is a direct result of the output of this solar energy from the sun. There exists empirical evidence that supports their view but perhaps not to a great degree.
These solar flares are noted during increased sun activity and that is when there exist a greater number of sunspots — dark sports on the surface of the sun. Sunspots were first observed by Galileo in 1610. In the period 1645 to 1715 scientists observed a strange occurrence where sunspots disappeared and this coincided with the “little ice age” where Northern Europe endured protracted, bitter-cold weather. Between 1900 and 1950 the earth’s temperature increased and coincidentally that was during the period of increased sunspot activity. The fact is that the sun’s temperature rises considerably when there are sunspots.
It appears that the relationship between sever solar radiation and the shift in the earth’s axis of rotation cannot be contested. Can we then dismiss with absolute confidence as absurd that climate change can largely be attributed to natural causes? What could be the motive of scientists for emphasising the inconsequential contribution of humans to climate change and not natural causes? Surely we cannot solely attribute this phenomenon of the melting ice caps to greenhouse emissions. Why are pre-eminent scientists at the centre of the climate change debate undermining the sun’s effect on climate change?
Humanity is facing the greatest challenge of responding to the devastating consequences of nature. The Mayan prophecy has been downplayed largely by those holding political office despite empirical science supporting its veracity. The Mayans accurately predicted solar and lunar eclipses in the past and their predictions of the earth being in exact alignment with the sun and the centre of our Milky Way galaxy has not enjoyed much prominence from authorities. No government would want to confirm the veracity of apocalyptic predictions and send the public into immediate panic. According to the Nasa report: “The impacts of severe space weather events go beyond disruption of existing technical systems and can lead to short- and long-term, collateral socio-economic disruptions and problems.”
When the brown smelly bits hit the fan, authorities will look towards us and impose collective guilt as having done little to reduce greenhouse emissions and save humanity from extinction. Without being defeatist we must acknowledge that a battle against nature has only one casualty — humanity!
Science does seem to have become debatable…
The Mayan prophesy has been downplayed because it is rubbish. Hats off to the Mayans for being able to observe and document our orbit around the Galaxy core.
The simple reason that it is rubbish is that the counting is simply a mental construct of man. The same applies for the beginning and end of our years. We know that the year is 365.25 days in length because this is an observable phenomena, but calling Jan 1 the beginning of the year is a man made construct. The same applies for the 26000 year cycle. The fact that the Mayans counted cycle ends in 2012 is just a man made construct – the only effect of which, is happening in the minds of men.
@Sentletse Diakanyo
Re: “Why are pre-eminent scientists at the centre of the climate change debate undermining the sun’s effect on climate change?”
Please clarify your source?
Since 2007 there has not been a single scientific organisation of national or international standing that has disputed that the temperature increases of the last 50 years are due to humans. Crackpot fringe scientists, yes; Big Oil and Coal funded disinformation campaigns definitely, but mainstream science no.
Are saying the International Panel on Climate Change who shared a Nobel Prize with Al Gore are wrong?
Have you viewed Al Gore’s video “An Inconvenient Truth” download the movie/trailer here:
http://www.an-inconvenient-truth.com/
If you are on the side of the handful of climate sceptics sponsored by the oil industry it would also be good to read this excellent article visit “Climate Change Myths” at
http://one-blue-marble.com/climate-change-myths.html
The Difference, Mr Diakanyo, is that we cannot do anything about natural global warming, the earth’s rotation or the sun’s radiation. We CAN however, do something about lessening our OWN contribution to changing the climate and polluting the only place in the known universe that supports our species. But that’s only if we’d like the pleasure of continuing to live here.
While the sun definitely has played a major role in the earth’s climate, a little more research would have given you a much clearer picture of why solar activity is not considered to be the major determinant of the warming that has occurred in the past 60 years:
1 – Solar activity peaked in the 1960s; since then solar radiation levels have been gradually decreasing.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif
2 – We’re currently experiencing the deepest solar minimum for 100 years.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
3 – You mention sunspot activity and their link to increased temperatures but fail to explain how sunspot activity has decreased since 1960 whilst CO2 and temperature levels have continued to increase.
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/600px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
So while it’s not impossible that the recent warming may be due to the sun (this is science, not maths), it would be difficult to make an empirical case to support that. What’s much more concerning is the fact that we’ve just come out of the hottest decade on record at the same time that solar activity has been at record lows – the implications for global temperatures when solar activity picks up again are very concerning.
Assuming that “greenhouses gases” are the major driver of climate change the human contribution is negligible.
95% is due to water vapour – 5% to Carbon dioxide – of this 5% 95%+ is due to natural causes. This means humans are responsible for 0.25% of the “greenhouse”.
This means that ,taking worst case of 6 degrees warming by 2100 according to IPCC, we are responsible for 0.15 degrees warming.
Enjoy the warm interglacial while it lasts!
Dear Sentletse
It is always important to question things but unfortunately you have the cat by the tail.
If you are wrong and main stream science is correct, millions and millions of people are going to die and be displaced.
Climate Change to Force 75 Million Pacific Islanders From Their Homes
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/27-1
Africa is the continent that will suffer most under global warming.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061126115458.htm
Here is an excellent article “What is the greenhouse effect”
http://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/greenhouse.htm
I strongly recommend you read “Climate Wars” by Gwynne Dyer as it promises to be one of the most important books of the coming years.
@Sentletse Diakanyo
Pre-eminant scientists on the IPCC are not undermining the suns effect on climate change, but 20 years of research shows that greenhouse gasses from our industrial era are a major contributor to climate change. We cannot change the suns behavior but we can save hundreds of millions of lives by drastically reducing CO2 emissions.
Another contribution we can make is by converting our argiculture from convention farming methods to organic farming methods.
http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml
Doing this will also provide safer healthier food and increase food security, especially on a poverty stricken continent like Africa.
United Nations FAO promotes organic agriculture:
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/FAOPromotesOrganicAgriculture.php
Continued….
Converting our agricultural land to organic methods will immediatly reduce CO2 in the atmosphere to pre-industial levels of CO2, this will give us breathing space to convert the world to renewable energy that does not pump out masses of CO2 like burning fossil fuels.
Excellent analysis. A first (to my knowledge) in the ZA media. Well done!
At last some one has looked at the whole issue of climate change rationally and not made an emotional onslaught. Thank you Sentletse for the research that you have done.
Beanie is (rightly) asking for a clarification of sources, but why does nobody in the media say anything about “CLIMATE-GATE”?? Beanie will find very specific answers there. Wikipedia has an article about it.
And before some Climategate evangelists try and tell us the last decade saw the earth cooling, new study: “Last Decade Warmest Ever: NASA”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/01/22-5
Of the Mayan calendar, my son likes to think that it ends in 2012 because the bod deputised to work out dates probably died when he reached that point. It must have struck the Mayans that they didn’t yet need more, so they didn’t get another fellow working on it.
I also firmly believe that natural events affect global warming considerably. Who measured the last hole in the ozone layer? When did it occur? How can we be sure that it’s not there just there to release poisonous gases? Data only become useful once there’s something to compare them to!
But how little respect we humans for our planet is also an issue, whether or not our dirt causes the end of life on earth as we know it…it reminds me of those women they find in America, who keep dozens of dogs that are never let out. They defecate around the home for years. Their mess is never cleaned up. On a far larger scale, that so describes all human beings: living in our own muck!
All those who writing here wait for others to save the world when they are the consumers who keep the carbon emissions coming with their useless purchases of fancy cars unnecessary clothing purchases etc.
If any of you sat down, then really thought it out in layman’s terms you would see that you the consumers are the cause of Carbon emissions.
Forget the science. There will always be two truths to what is really happening. Open your Garage and Cupboards to see what you no longer use.
Think of the reason for the purchases. Think how, if you had not purchased what is now waste, how you, and a million other consumers would have saved the generation of a few thousand tonnes of carbon emissions.
The simple solution is Do I really need this purchase or am I doing it to brag to my friends. Collectively for example if none purchases a simple T-shirt for three months we could save the planet a few million tonnes of carbon. Now take that to Ipods, mp3 players etc. think of the Carbon savings.
BLAME THE FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES.
They started industrialization (westernisation)
No we cannot blame the Sun (Nature)
We can blame western civilization for initiating industrialization when the rest of the world was quite happy to live with nature
Twenty years ago, the scientists were warning that human activity was causing global cooling and we were heading for a new Ice Age. A couple of major volcanic eruptions could easily slow or halt global warming.
In effect, I don’t think any scientist can say for sure how climate is going to change.
That said, I think it’s an excellent idea to rethink how the human race uses energy and to exploit new sources of energy.
@Sentletse
You are being mischevious with this article. Hopefully you will not let Africa down on this subject.
The head of the IPCC said fossil fuel industry lobbyists would be working overtime to disseminate false information about climate change before this years meeting in Mexico, make sure they are not visiting you my good friend.
@leti Is this a complaint about being taken out of the bush? You do not have to buy the things that are on offer. Those same western items you buy keep the carbon coming.
The climate change debate continues to rage. There is no doubt(in my mind)that man’s activities have had an effect on the planet. Having said that,I have started to look askance at the whole ‘We are responsible for the warming’ faction. Everything else is carefully avoided in any discussion from the El Nino effect in the Pacific, the Arctic Oscillation in the Northern hemisphere etc. As soon as you mention ‘natural causes’ of any kind you are lumped with the ‘skeptics’ (a word that has suddenly found disfavour when applied to idealistic ideals). The ‘Climate-gate’ thing goes deeper than a few e-mails back and forth and evidence is being unearthed about fudged figures, evidence taken out of context/exaggerated etc. Why do this if the whole thing is a forgone conclusion? The argument is always made- what gain could be had by such subterfuge, well, how about nearly every single business enterprise on Earth suddenly marketing ‘environmentally friendly’ goods for one? Governments wangling for tax increases due to ‘environmental concerns’? Idealists using ‘global warming’ to press their fundamental desires? Marketing 101: create a market need.
Anyway, this does in no way say that we shouldn’t be more, if not totally aware of what we consume. We still have a hole in the ozone, garbage islands in the Pacific etc.
What we should be doing however,is seeing how we are going to adjust to climate change instead of passing the buck…
@Pieter Pretorius: somehow you have managed to avoid seeing the extensive analysis of the East Anglia e-mails – done by the Associated Press, in one instance, and in others, by a number of science-related resources – all of which found that the info and comments therein may expose some petty behaviour and the like, but does not undermine the vast evidence which shows that anthropogenic global warming is a significant and dangerous trend.
m1 and leti: sure you’re right, it’s the dastardly westerners who dunnit. That said, may I ask what car you drive? Do you carpool? How many plastic water/sports drink bottles did you throw away last year? Do you swithc off lights/use energy efficient lighting? Have you protested against Eskom’s new coal-fired power station plans?
It’s not enough to blame it all on the ‘West’. You have to change your own expectations and actions.
SA is going to be hard hit by climate change – I suspect the terrible drought, worst in 130 years, in the Southern Cape will be seen as a symptom of the climate shift in years to come. SA is one of the top emitters in the world – we are to the rest of Africa what the USA is to the rest of the world. So make a difference, my friend!
“Climategate” was a publicity stunt by the oil industry. It has however not altered the scientific fact that we have to seriously curtail CO2 emissions.
Asking “Why are pre-eminent scientists at the centre of the climate change debate undermining the sun’s effect on climate change?” is a false premise, and merely an extension of the same oil industry disinformation campaign.
This article highlights the need for journalists to do their homework carefully and be more vigilent.
The book “Heat: How to stop the planet burning” by George Monbiot exposes how the oil industry ruthlessly try to influence public opinion on climate change.
Monbiot also demonstrates how we can achieve a 90% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030.
“There are scientists who tell us that ocean currents do carry heat from the tropical zones (Cancer and Capricorn) to the two poles, North and South. This melts the the ice caps at these poles. As the ice melts the pressure holding the tectonic plates is gradually reduced and allows them to move and as a consequence we endure devastating natural disasters such as floods, tsunamis and earthquakes.”
Any chance this scientist is called MoAferika?
Has anyone read a book called “The Wastemakers” by Vance Packard? Oh no, I forgot, the advertising moguls and popular press of the 60′s decided he was a crackpot, and therefore he was! They probably collectively held almost a science course amongst them but of course, what you see in the press must be so.
I cannot believe that anyone can doubt the existence of the hole in the ozone layer or the proof of rising temperatures, pollution and alarming loss of species directly related to man. Good grief! What is this: science by consensus? the Cornucopians strike again? Scientists base their predictions/hypothesese on provable facts (real data) and all real scientists agree with this rather stable system of gathering real knowledge. I suppose in an age where you can buy your degree over the internet it might seem that we could debate this system to suit popular fancy.
Scientists do not always interpret the data correctly, no, and more often than not fake scientists in the pay of multinationals do slant the interpretion of data in the direction of their own interest (pockets) but surely, with the internet being so readily available these days, is it really so much trouble for the average non-scientist to go and read through the actual research of the actual scientists involved? Beliefs/guesswork are unnecessary when one know the facts and the facts should be quite clear and pretty damning to anyone who’s bothered to go and look.
Everyone knocks “Big Oil” for influencing the debate away from a man made problem. Two observations:
what does IPCC stand for? International Panel for Climate Change ie anyone who disagrees with the UN position need not apply or expect an article published. Which is much more one sided, this position and use of resources or so called Big oil?
and check out who is spending millions no billions of R&D on alternate energy, yes Big Oil so they can’t be 110% bad.
Man made “climate change” is but a small part of the problem so our responce in terms of how much money is taken from the taxpayers to fund the rich and powerfuls schemes should be equitable with the size of the problems caused. Better to spend the money and brain power fixing up the mess and pollution fouling up our planet and this will automatically lower carbon.
The slogan should be: no more free tax payers money to the rich and powerful.
Brent
The answer is “No”.
This has been a public service announcement.
@X Cepting
1) “Scientists base their predictions/hypothesese on provable facts (real data) and all real scientists agree with this rather stable system of gathering real knowledge.” that is how it should be but there is always wiggle room, especially for someone with an agenda, i.e oil industry sceptics and climategate and East Anglia hacking episode.
2) “Beliefs/guesswork are unnecessary when one know the facts and the facts should be quite clear and pretty damning to anyone who’s bothered to go and look.” The general public often cannot read/interpret science. What looks like an innocuous conclusion to a member of the public may mean the end of the world to the trained eye.
Anyone who thinks Big Oil are angels is deluded.
1) “Oil industry has brought poverty and pollution to Niger Delta”
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/news/oil-industry-has-brought-poverty-and-pollution-to-niger-delta-20090630
2) “Big Oil’s Iraq deals are the greatest stick-up in history”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/04/oil.oilandgascompanies
3) “Big Oil on Trial For 1995 Nigerian Executions”
http://dissidentvoice.org/2009/05/big-oil-on-trial-for-1995-nigerian-executions/
4) “Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
5) “Shell Accused of Crimes Against Humanity”
http://www.newser.com/story/59783/shell-accused-of-crimes-against-humanity.html
First it was “Climategate”, now its “Glaciergate”, -an excellent analysis of these two oil industry publicity stunts by Gwynne Dyer –
http://www.straight.com/article-282021/vancouver/gwynne-dyer-climagegate-and-disbelief
I notice Sentletse Diakanyo has not responded to any of the comments. I hope he is researching them and will give us another article on the subject soon.